Re: util-linux seems to have /sbin/fsck
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:44:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:21:16AM +0900, Donggyoo Lee wrote:
>
> > Hi, I am using XFS on kernel-image-2.6.0-test11-1-386.
> > I don't use EXT3, EXT2 anymore. I don't need e2fsprogs package.
> > Therefore, I try to remove e2fsprogs. But, initscripts needed e2fsprogs,
> > Because e2fsprogs has /sbin/fsck and /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh uses /sbin/fsck.
> >
> > I think /sbin/fsck must be packed in not e2fsprogs but util-linux,
> > initscripts must need util-linux and util-linux must suggest e2fsprogs or xfsprogs.
> > because util-linux already has /sbin/mkfs. and XFS users doesn't use e2fsprogs except of /sbin/fsck.
> >
> > How do you think about that? Is it bug?
> >...
>
> No, it's not a bug.
>
> Since e2fsprogs is essential, no user should ever remove it (and a
> system without it is by definition broken).
>
> Making an essential package non-essential without breaking _any_ system
> is somewhere between "hard" and "impossible".
>
>
How about this?
e2fsprogs's ``Essential: yes`` does not change for some ext2,ext3 user. and add ``Recommends: e2fsprogs`` at e2fsprogs.(for begginer)
and then /sbin/mkfs move from e2fsprogs to util-linux.
and initscripts has ``Depends: ... e2fsprogs|xfsprogs|jfsutils|reiserfsprogs``.
How about this? I want to see your advice about this.
I am subscribed on this list. Don't CC to me.
Thank you,
Donggyoo.
Reply to: